Concept Scoring

Concept Screening

The concept selection matrix compares each concept and rates them based on the selection criteria developed from need statements. The ability to store stationery, documents, etc was translated to a general “storability” factor. The need for the organizer to be simple to use was translated to “simplicity” and “Ease of assembly”. Some designs were more complex than others and the connection methods were different. The need to save horizontal space was translated into “Height Variety” and “Compactable layout”. Height variety is important as well as the ability to store more by stacking modules vertically, reducing the need for additional modules to be placed adjacent. The other criteria are more direct translations like affordability.

Concept Selection

For a more in-depth evaluation of concepts, each of the selection criteria were given weights. The needs statements tables listed the needs with varying priorities and this was used to give weight values to the selection criteria. The most important factors were compact-able layout, affordability, and aesthetic. Affordability and aesthetics are heavily weighted as they were two of the most important factors to consumers from the survey. Sturdy connections, ease of assembly, and simplicity are related factors. However, the first two factors are not typically something that is considered when looking at desk organizers. The modular aspect of this project introduces new considerations that consumers are not expecting. The lack of organizer systems in the market that require assembly means there is not enough consumer data to determine the importance of these factors. As such they are given a lower weight from the baseline of 10% but it would have to be explored later.

Before the concepts were explored, Concept A was expanded on by combining Concept B ideas of bases and walls. The only difference between Concept A+ and Concept B is the connection method and as a result the scores ended up being very similar (see Table A-4). The differences in their scores came from differences in connection strength, affordability, and aesthetics. Magnets were considered to be more expensive but more attractive as the connections would be more flush. Notches on the other would be cheaper but would stick out. Further market research as well as physical testing needs to be done to determine which connection method is better.

The biggest drawbacks of concept C was the complexity of the height extension method which might not be the most visually appealing. On the other hand, concept D is very simplistic but would not allow very much customization with a fixed magnet bar that determines the layout. However, while these concepts scored lower, aspects of these concepts could potentially be included later in developments. Perhaps the bases could use the magnetic bar concept. Again, further research and testing needs to be done to determine the viability of these concepts. However, the general concept of attaching separate sections of variety shapes and sizes seems to be a good candidate for further development.

Page updated

Report abuse